45 comments:

Reading the comments at the link was pretty eye opening. The most hateful asshole in America who has a microphone everyday to say whatever he wants is getting muzzled by "the left" [here]...because they hate him in Britain?

Geert Wilders was the canary in the mine. Free speech is dead in Britain if this is allowed to stand.

Those who butcher their women and blow up the subways are protected. And a man who points out that this is wrong is barred from entry for being "too controversial." Sharia law is instituted so 'honor killings' (murder) can be forgiven, and a man who says this is wrong is barred from entry to a free nation. And the world stands silent.

LIke Savage or not - I happen to like him - this is wrong. Every single American should condemn this. OUR PRESIDENT should condemn this as madness. But he won't.

Savage is just a beard so that they can ban actual Islamic terrorists without looking like they are singling out Muslims.

Seems to me like an expedient, but short-sighted move by the UK.Interesting. I did notice they had banned some Muslim preachers but the news makes them almost an afterthought. This really isn't a rights thing. Countries are well within their rights to deny entry to anyone they want; a right I wish the US would use somewhat more aggressively.

It is interesting that Savage likes to attack the professional conservatives.

Sure, he is himself an attention whore and windbag who supplies the very much in demand empathy (the poor-is-us-conservatives empathy, which, as everybody knows, is the only just empathy) for the endlessly persecuted audience (as these helpless conservictims see themselves), but it's still nice to see Mike call out the other professional conservatives.

And, a few weeks ago he had Jerry Brown on his radio show. It was odd to hear that those two had a fair amount of chemistry. Maybe the political spectrum is an arch rather than a straight line, so the far left and the far right actually start to coincide. [Not that Jerry Brown is as extreme as Savage/Wiener, but he's had his moments.]

Savage was on Talk of the Nation yesterday. They took a caller who got like two words in before Savage called him a "pajama wearing lunatic in an mental institution" and threatened to hang up. Host Neal Conan told him to go ahead and he did. He was spectacularly awful. but from the little I've heard him before, that's kind of his MO, no? Reminded me a bit of the famous Terry Gross/Gene Simmons interview.

I don't support the ban, but if the UK wanted to make an Official List of Total Jackasses, I'd support Savage being on that list.

As for Michael Savage, I am not a fan but I have listened to his show. Michael Savage is a nut job, although I admit I like hearing him talk about growing up in the Bronx. Savage, whose real name is Michael Wiener used to be friends with Ginsberg and Ferlingetti, before he started this whole "Savage" thing. But to ban him from the UK? Rush is mad he did not get banned. What publicity.

"But I don't think there is anything wrong with denying people entry to your country if their beliefs are extremely offensive to the citizenry."

Are the beliefs offensive to the citizenry or the government? How does the citizenry of England feel about all the nice Islamic extremists who were freely allowed entry to the country? Did they get to have a say in that?

This has nothing to do with the content of the speech or the character of those denied entry to England. Savage is either a brilliant performance artist or a repugnant moron (I think both, actually) and no one that I have ever heard has any sympathy for Fred Phelps, but the issue is the principle at stake: defending liberty. My speech in defense of liberty doesn't end at our national borders.

Amusing how the "Dissent is Patriotic" crowd has nothing to say when its speech they disapprove of. I'm also disappointed the British people are so weak minded they need to be protected from Savage's idiocy. Poor, poor, shrinking violets.

Probably a quibble, but I do disagree that the 1st Amendment was designed to protect offensive speech. It was designed to protect dissenting speech. It has grown to protect offensive speech and I myself disagree with that construction, but so it goes.

Check out the Sceptred Isle's The Public Order Act 1986. I honestly cannot tell if that is the latest version, (I became mired when trying to verify) but it must come close.

Among other bits

5. Harassment, alarm or distress.- (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he-(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.Emphasis added.

Free speech in England died when they banned any depiction of Piglet in one's work space in government offices.

Which makes me wonder. Will rules for government contracts and the like now be enforced on GM? Or were they before? Sorry to show my ignorance of such, but I'm truly curious?

* foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs * seek to provoke others to terrorist acts * foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts or * foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.I think the Home Secretary is on pretty firm footing for most of these. The last one though is problematic to liberty loving types. "Fostering hatred" might be anything the panjandrums decide it is, from calling for the castration of homosexuals to someone who has expressed a mild discomfort at the sight of gay porn. It seems like this one is in there to give them cover when they decide to deny visas to people like Geert Wilders.

I've heard Wieners show. I have no problem with his show at all. Sometimes he goes of the deep end, but it's usually a sentiment that caters to his east coast roots and others tend to feed into his frustration factor. However, for a once great country like Jolly Ole England to put someone on a non-entry list like Michael Savage because of their being offended at his remarks only makes one thing what on one wonder what on the nine planes of hell are they thinking when their radical muslim imams and pakistani ghetto rats are allowed to spew the vilest of oratory hatreds towards anyone not like them within the country.

Is that how it goes in England? If you are already an offensive individual or group of individuals that is already in the country we can tolerate you, but if you want to get in we don't? What has happened to this once great country? The lunatics are running the asylum.

"No hottubbing Marinite who hung around Berkeley long enough to get a PhD (back when Berkeley was Berserkeley) is a conservative."

That's bullshit. A whole bunch of them started on the road to conservatism in September of 2001. Also Berkeley is more berserk now than ever. Trust me. Although I try to avoid it I still have to go there from time to time. If you need proof go to Zomietime's website and look at some of the recent protest pictures.

However I will admit that Savage's Marxist roots do show from time to time. He has a totalitarian streak that is the antithesis of the principals of modern American conservatism and is much more in step with the left. He is nowhere near as smart or knowledgeable as Rush or Mark Levin, but he is an amusing raconteur and highly enjoyable when he tells stories of his youth. When he tries to talk politics though he's usually pretty cringeworthy.

And why does a supposedly free nation deny entry to those espousing ideas, by talking and the written word?

They aren't denying entry to his ideas or writing, at least so far as I know. So this has nothing whatsoever to do with his free speech rights.

As for the complaint about denying him entry, last I checked you weren't an open borders advocate. What's the defense for denying a person entry based on his nationality -- which is usually not his fault -- but not on the basis of his character?

What's the defense for denying a person entry based on his nationality -- which is usually not his fault -- but not on the basis of his character?

The defense is that immigration policy is not ordinarily predicated on individual worthiness. Therefore, a policy which sets certain limits for immigration from different regions may be justified on some notion of fairness or equal opportunity. For the reasons a policy that discriminates based on expression is a bad idea, may I suggest On Liberty by one J.S. Mill?

"But I don't think there is anything wrong with denying people entry to your country if their beliefs are extremely offensive to the citizenry."Are you or are you not offended by the adherents of an old man famous for porking a nine year old girl?

For the reasons a policy that discriminates based on expression is a bad idea, may I suggest On Liberty by one J.S. Mill?

Could you explain why you think "On Liberty" applies here? Mill was a utilitarian, and a good utilitarian argument can be made for not allowing foreigners who are hostile to liberty to join your democracy.

When you blindly accept people into your democracy without requiring that they accept its principles, you end up in the situation the Dutch are stuck in today.